Skip to main content

About your Search

20130208
20130208
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
the cuts because, in fact, i think we have to cut the pentagon. >> yeah. >> if we can. >> but not to take an ax to it. the way we are approaching it, that means readiness gets cut where you want to maintain -- you always want to maintain readiness. >> that's what the real problem is. the sequester was designed by the republicans really as an alternative and they designed it in a way it was going to be so bad that we would never do it. now since they can't come up with anything else, even though they are they have the majority, some of them are talking that the sequester makes sense. you have to be specific and purposeful when you are designing a budget. >> we are talking to congressman peter welch, democrat from vermont here on the friday morning edition of the "full-court press." has there been any panel discussion? i believe i read about immigration reform there, and what is the feeling that, you know, it looks like something is going to get through the clearance. any hope of getting anything comprehensive through the house. >> there h
during the testimony, it was interesting because panetta said the pentagon, the c.i.a., and the department of state were all on board with sending the rebels in syria where there has been mass genocide because ofor us to send them arms. you know who said no? the white house. well, we don't know if it's going to work. we don't know which of the rebels to arm. ultimately we don't know if it will result in the ouster of assad. >> brian: the "washington post" lead editorial today says hillary clinton and david petraeus, running the c.i.a. identified the group that they believe would have been the preferrable group to take over through all the rebels, they weeded through and had a plan. and the president nixed it. the word is too political. they wanted to make it seem we're not on a war footing with the election a month away. >> gretchen: maybe the election playing a huge role. let's look at the fox news polls right now. recently conducted, how many people feel our country compared to five years ago? nearly half of those polled say america is weaker and less powerful to
the sequester in a hurry, then yes, it's a real problem because it doesn't let the pentagon begin to plan and distribute, if you will, the cuts. but at the end of the day, whether it's defense spending, education spending, health spending, what always matters more than how much you spend is how you spend it. and so i'm not, at the end of the day, all that worried about how much we spend, whether it's on defense or anything else. you just want to have the time to make some intelligent cuts rather than have to make them literally in a matter of days which would probably mean that readiness more than anything else would be cut out of the defense department account. and that's probably the one thing you don't want cut out of it. >> sam stein, you're close and yet so far away over there at the jump seat. what are the odds that the sequester actually takes place? we know the president's proposed something to push them back a while. are we going to see these kind of cuts, the ones that were outlined in the sequester proposal? >> i think the odds are pretty high, to be honest. i don't think there
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)